"'You mean that period when individuals appropriated land for themselves and the majority who were not landowners had no choice but to work the land for the landowner's profit, from which they could keep but leavings?'

"Why, yes.

"Now focus on how this differs from capitalism. That seems to be the part that eludes you."

Heh. I almost went on in my orignal post to point out how similar my description of serfdom was to where we have come to today, but I thought it was so apparent it didn't require the redundancy of my saying it.

There is a difference between self-interest and greed. Different people can work in their own mutual self-interest. Whereas with greed, there is no such modifier as "mutual".

Let me respectfully disagree. You are positing a distinction without a difference. You really cannot create much wealth without mutual self-interest. Bill Gates, while making himself the richest man on the planet for a number of years, made thousands of Microserfs into millionaires. Without mutual self-interest, you are working alone in your garage. And, ditto with most of the other great fortunes. For example, Sam Walton made his fortune providing city prices and selection to the more remote parts of this country. He provided millions with a better life. It was in their self-interest to make him rich, and in his to give them the selection, prices, and convenience they wanted.

So, let me suggest that the distinction that you are trying to make is really an attempt to recharacterize self-interest into that which you approve of and that which you don't, and you do it more by political persuasion than economic benefits and results.

@Bruce, what you're saying goes back to what I said upthread that got Ritmo's panties in a bunch. So let me ask the question again, should we regard the likes of Warren Buffett and George Soros as a sort of tax that the system pays so that entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison and Michael Dell and Sam Walton can improve the lives of the rest of us?

O Ritmo Segundo said...It's good to know that the conservative consensus is debased enough to believe that Paris Hilton's inheritance of her family's wealth has provided more social benefit than using any of that to provide health care for the uninsured or nutritious food for the hungry.

When India followed the socialist economic policies its leaders had learned at Oxbridge, its massive poverty seemed intractable.

Gradually, and especially since 1991, India has moved away from a regime of state monopoly and high import duties toward a more laissez-faire approach. The results?

These reforms have paid handsomely. The economy has grown at more than 6 percent coupled with full macroeconomic stability. This compares with a growth rate of 3.5 percent during 1950-1980. The rate of inflation has been low and foreign exchange reserves are sufficient to finance imports for more than eight months. Rising incomes have helped bring down poverty. According to official figures, the proportion of poor in total population has declined from 40 percent in 1993-1994 to 26 percent in 2000.

it was enabled by the people's government, of course, as well as the banking system.

If only Bag had known. He would have single-handedly prevented it, I'm sure. Out with the megaphones, the ad campaigns and greasing the lobbyists' wheels. Every political opinion he has is social salvation and it was a shame some poor person prevented him from teaching our politicians and our people The Gospel of Bag when it counted.

"So wealth acquisition was generally measured by how successful a state fared in war." The use of the passive obfuscates. Are you claiming this was the metric of wealth acquisition (generally) used at those times, or the metric modern historians are applying?

"It took the booty and treasure of the defeated state, sold its citizens as slaves, and felt good and satisfied about that, and repeated the process. In what way is this understanding even controversial?" Controversial, no; rather, grossly overgeneralizing and simplistic.

One of the earliest known organized states, Uruk, initially became fantastically wealthy through trade. Through organized and intensive irrigation it had turned desert lands into such fertile fields that it routinely had surplus produce. It then traded the surplus for the stone, metals and minerals that were totally lacking in its environment. Small enclaves of Urukean traders have been discovered over a vast swathe of territory outside of Mesopotamia. There is no evidence whatsoever that Uruk conducted any military actions for this wealth acquisition.

One finds a similar situation in the city-state of Ashur (the center of Assyria) in the Old Assyrian period. Ashur was then run by a council consisting of the heads of merchant families. Under their direction, Ashur served as the nexus for a long-distance trade network to facilitate the exchange of metals from Anatolia (Turkey) for textiles and other craftwork from states Mesopotamia and ancient Iran. There are thousands of documents in their trade enclave in the ancient city of Kanesh in Anatolia, including receipts and correspondence with relatives in Ashur, almost all of it dealing with trade. Ashur became quite rich from these dealings and, again, no military raids or conquests were ever involved in obtaining these goods, nor was the enslavement of any people necessary.

Each of these periods lasted for several centuries, that is, trade-over-war policies for wealth acquisition were deliberately implemented and successfully maintained over extensive periods of time.

O Ritmo wrote:It's good to know that the conservative consensus is debased enough to believe that Paris Hilton's inheritance of her family's wealth has provided more social benefit than using any of that to provide health care for the uninsured or nutritious food for the hungry.

How much is a poor person paying no taxes contributing to the feeding of others? (I decree that life is simply taking and not giving, england is mine and it owes me a living!)How much are rich people who pay the lion share of taxes? Maybe you should thank them.

I almost went on in my orignal post to point out how similar my description of serfdom was to where we have come to today, but I thought it was so apparent it didn't require the redundancy of my saying it.

And you'd be 100% wrong. You see, the serfs today have flat screen TV's, EBT cards paying for their food, rent payments, and medical care. All paid for by yours and my tax dollars. So even comparing "serfdom" today and years ago is laughable at best.

You lefties really do live on an entirely different planet. I still can't grasp that.

The fact that Uruk was nowhere near as successful in its impact on history as Rome shows that defeating countries in war was the most powerful method of wealth acquisition until the 15th century allowed technological progress, the scientific revolution and free thinking, liberal political ideas to hold greater sway, appeal and results than what came before.

If you think that's an overgeneralization then I've got a bunker in Berlin to show you. (Intentional sarcasm).

And the limited popularity of the Althouse's blog's opinions, at that.

It wasn't an appeal to popularity at all. It was a statement of fact. If you are the one tooting your own horn, it's unlikely to be true. If you say you're the ideal man for all woman and women are barfing everytime you walk up to them, maybe your animal magnetism is like putting on Sex Panther.

I can't wait for the day that cunts like you are beaten in the street. It's going to happen. The tolerance for your stupidity will evaporate in the wake of a dirty bomb attack on Manhattan. I'll be cheering on the sidelines while the crowd beats you, if I'm still alive.

Ok, I hear internet bullying is a problem, so I'll quit now. It's freaking beautiful here in L.A. today: sunny, high 70s, awesome! I'm getting outside. I'm gonna find some homeless person and give him the money Ritmo refuses to, as he clings tightly to his unfair privileges of internet, and free time. You really are a mean person with all that stuff.

"The fact that Uruk was nowhere near as successful in its impact on history as Rome shows that defeating countries in war was the most powerful method of wealth acquisition"

We must be using different definitions of "successful" in relation to impact. Cuneiform writing, the first writing system we know of, was created in Uruk, and remained in use for several millennia. Writing had a profound impact on social, economic, and political systems. Versions of particular offices and institutions as they were practiced in Uruk, such as kingship, became THE model for all subsequent cuneiform civilizations, and Uruk is mentioned in ancient sources long after it lost its political eminence. Uruk had a long-lasting effect over a wide range of phenomena, which was repeatedly acknowledged by those later cultures that drew from it, but these facts are evidently easy for someone with such a Eurocentric view of history to ignore.

The federal government spends $240 billion in about 24 days. God only knows how much of that money is wasted, goes to overpaid bureaucrats, pays for Obama's vacations, etc. If we just bit the national bullet for about 15% we could end poverty world wide. But, the government doesn't earn money, so we must attack those that do rather than the ever growing parasitic blob that sucks the life from our economy, robs us of our freedoms and seeks to oppress all who defy it.

"Also, including Assyria as an example of a peaceful, trading enterprise is a bit rich. Read your Bible and get back to me on what they made of the defeated peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean."

My my. Such historical ignorance.The Old Assyrian period, which I did specify, is a term used in scholarly literature for northern Mesopotamia during the years ca. 1950 to 1750, at which time Ashur was indeed a non-militaristic city-state that successfully acquired its wealth through trade policies directed by its political rulers.

As is wont to happen, circumstances changed, and Assyria eventually developed into a militaristic enterprise. Whether at this point it could also be characterized as imperialistic is argued, as it generally hit, looted and deported, but avoided establishing an on-going local administration (something the Babylonians did go in for), which some theorists contend is necessary for an undertaking to be genuinely imperialistic.

Assyria's first excursion into the Levant didn't occur until ca. 1000, and the references to Assyria in the Bible relate to events even later, from roughly 880 to 600 --- close to a thousand years after the Old Assyrian period. Yet you assert the Assyria of 700 is the same as the Assyria of 1700. You lack basic knowledge. Enrich yourself with a comparative timeline of historical period --- they're not hard to find.

I didn't "give up" the points I made about Assyria in the Old Assyrian period, as they are factual (I know someone who's writing a dissertation about the Assyrian trade enclaves in Anatolia, and I myself have read correspondence between the enclave and Ashur, some of which is pretty funny, e.g. whining about negligence en route that allowed moths to get into a shipment of textiles, and "how the fuck am I supposed to sell this shit!"). The delay is due to the fact that I was double-checking certain details.

If the basic knowledge in question amounts to "nations don't become empires until they've become strong enough to successfully wage war on others" then you need not flatter yourself. I actually understand this point. It's not as innovative or informative as I think you wanted me to believe.

Oh that's so cute, Lydia! But don't worry your pretty little head about it. I'm sure you'll be able to find a gazillionaire to whore yourself out to, no matter how much botox or implants or phony personality he requires of your shriveled and desiccated self.

Enjoy the day. If you have more later, Basta, I'll read it. I admit to no special or particular knowledge about the ancient Near East, but will take you up on any points you think I've missed. Peace out.

They are making the wrong request. They cannot ask for redistributive or retributive change and hope to preserve their moral position. They should be asking for economic opportunity (i.e. voluntary exploitation). They should be declaring their willingness and preparedness to contribute their labor to the development of their community and themselves.

There is an exception, but the welfare of a small minority who are both physically and mentally incapable of productive participation, should not dictate general policies.

People need to understand how and why minority interests are capable of a majority effect. Unfortunately, they do, but their comprehension is selective. Especially with respect to causes of progressive corruption.

Anyway, this agenda, like most, is about powerful interests competing for the pole position. This particular interest resorts to manipulating perception, emotional extortion, treating symptoms (in perpetuity), exploiting or manufacturing differentials and gradients, displacement (e.g. excessive and unmeasured immigration, environmentalism), and evolutionary genocide (i.e. abortion), in short a selective respect for life, individuals, science, and history.

It is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress.

I brought up certain facts about the external operations of Assyria during the Old Assyrian period (ca. 1950-1750). You responded that the depiction of Assyria in the Bible (which relates to events approximately 1000 years later) contradicts that. You are either subscribing to historical stasis, or you are unaware of the chronology of events in this geographical area.

Based on other posts you had made earlier on this thread, I discounted the first. And this led me to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the chronology of this area, so that you wouldn't blithely conflate the Assyria of the Bible with the Assyria of 1000 years earlier.

And knowing when things occurred is basic knowledge, absolutely necessary before one begins any type of historical analysis.

The difference between poverty and relative wealth is culture. Just compare Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In 1950 South Korea was poorer than Kenya or Haiti. So was Taiwan. Compare them today.

Even in Communist countries their is great inequality in wealth. Mao lived like an emperor. In the USSR the vanguard had the dachas and the proletariat were lucky to get their meager ration coupons. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Paris Hilton to be sure isn't a poster child for inherited wealth but then again she has nothing to appologize for. If the Hilton's and the Walton's knew their wealth would distributed would they have bothered to earn it?

Somehow the heads of NGO's seem to live very well. Lets see what justifications they would make if their income and wealth were to were to be redistributed.

Some commenters here believe the west won its wealth by conquest and the worlds poor countries are pacifist by nature. Of course in reality that has never been the case. Indeed a lot of those countries in the past were relatively rich but subsequently blew it. Again, culture matters. Even more so than having natural resources.

Oh Geez, Basta - when does it ever end? Every empire had its beginnings in states too weak to rely on war and conquest for its growth. WIth your willing ignorance to discount a truism as basic as that, we might as well say that all states are pacific, because they had their beginnings with much cozier tribes and collections of hunter-gatherers.

This isn't about misconstruing things. It's about you hammering on about a point so narrow as to be of no use to anything.

If your point is that the narrow window of non-imperial Assyrian history that you're fixated on lasted longer and more significantly than others, then you'd have a point. And you might go on to say that there are other examples like that. But I don't think you're making that point. I don't think you can.

She did it in an underhanded, moby-like way. But that makes it all the worse.

I'm trying to re-read the comment in such a way as to allow for the possibility that she wasn't trying to be insulting. But I'm not seeing it. If she was trying to be sneaky about it, it failed immediately.

I don't like sneaks. There is a smugness about such mobyism that I find arrogant beyond belief. If she had frothily sputtered raving insults, that might have been preferable to me, as it at least would have been honest. But civility for the sake of tricking someone into seeming like a more willing tyrant is deplorable.

It's hard enough to get the lot of you to sensibly argue or converse with someone who disagrees with you as is. The last thing I need is a smirking faux-humanitarian.

Sorry. I do agree that it's possible that I over-reacted - indeed, I probably did just a tad. But at least you know why.

Hey, it's tough having to put up with raving loony "tough guys" like Thomas. I try to accommodate those who are willing to behave more civilly, but it's not the easiest transition given all the filth I have to wade through to get there. So maybe I don't always quickly perceive the more delicate flowers among you as soon as I should.

I don't think she was. It reads to me as if she's commenting to bagoh20, and just threw in an offhand dig at you at the end. Since you had been dominating the thread for some time, I'm sure you were no more than top of mind when she wrote her last line. So I ask again, do you think the content of your response was proportionate?

I dunno CJ. You admit she insulted me, I insulted her. This hair-splitting demand for a weight and measure of proportionality to within the thousandths of a nanogram supplied by a nuclear-powered device sounds a bit far-fetched. It was one comment. To one person - who's never appeared here before. I already admitted that perhaps it was a tad off. But the fact that you've never defended me against attacks a thousand times more unhinged than this one, that are launched regularly on this site, makes me wonder what you're really trying to accomplish with this exercise.

Different people can work in their own mutual self-interest. Whereas with greed, there is no such modifier as "mutual".

Really? Thieves commonly share mutual greed.

Greed causes someone to think that their passionate hatred of or disregard for someone justifies killing or maiming him.

Not all wealthy people are greedy. That's what's so funny about Republicans. The higher up the income scale you go, the more liberals you find.

Greed and Republicans congregate at the "bottom" of the upper-income bracket, where you find tasteless nouveaux riches who can't distinguish between being driven to acquire more and more of something and being driven to see any natural limitation on that as a means to your destruction.

I take it "Dadvocate" sees any natural limitation or diminishing returns to the greed that impels him to want more and more of something (anything?) as a means to his destruction, then.

Other than that, thanks for the incoherent and irrational attempts at rebuttal. I guess if I were the sort of armchair psychiatrist you fancy yourself as then I'd console myself with talk about what light's been "given shed" into your soul by them.

If the current $240B hasn't done much of anything, why would the article's $240 Billion do something?

Foriegn aid is often actually destructive rather than helpful in developing markets. One of its more insidious effects is to destroy the lively hoods of local farmers, as much of the food aid ends up for sale in the markets and drives the prices down.

The best thing we could do to help developing nations is to stop sending them aid, and enter into trade with them instead.

I see Ritmo continues his absurd associations, false and imaginary accusations, disjointed thinking. You have no idea about my greed although I can assure I am greedy for more and more freedom, which your philosophy wants to limit. I have no idea in what way I'm hypocritical nor how you would know as you have no idea how I lead my life except for the few thoughts I post here.

Bit. all here that bother to occasionally read your posts, as I did today, know you're a fool who thinks government stealing from some and giving it to others is somehow a virtue. A fool that fails to see and/or denies the greed and corruption rampant in our government and most other governments around the world. A fool in virtually all your beliefs regarding the proper role of government. And, a person tainted with hatred of the rich, of free thinkers, or anyone who doesn't conform to your pathological thoughts. It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see the disturbances in your mind. Any observant person can perceive them clearly.

"Foriegn aid is often actually destructive rather than helpful in developing markets"

As they say in Internetland, "This."

Aid can be constructive when it comes in a crisis, after a natural disaster or epidemic, for example. When it becomes a chronic drip-drip-drip, it ends up undermining the ability of the aided to get their own house in order.

Glad to give you the opportunity to reveal yourself as the kind of asshole who thinks that saving the lives of others limits your greed for "freedom", Dudvocate.

No doubt it would take a lot of pscycho-babble gobbledygook to deflect from showing us all the abject sociopath in you that such evil reveals.

For all those who care, a paranoid, abstract fear of government is one of the most classic signs of schizophrenia. Dadvocate refers to no specific actions or even specific problems, let alone any solution other than to presumably deprive the sick, dying and hungry of assistance. He offers philosophical rationalizations for anti-social behavior in the service of an unempathetic disregard for the lives of others.

It's wonderful fun to imagine governments, easily the leading killer of humans in the last 100 years as benevolent savers of lives.

All those who resisted the Soviets, the Chinese Communists, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis and all the other worst mass murderers of the last 100 years were merely paranoid, after all. The ideologies that drove those groups were abstract ideas, of course. So fearing the abstract ideology of collectivism that was central to the atrocities is a sign of schizophrenia, QED.

Mendacity for all the world to see. Impotent rage roiling in the psuedo-intellectual veneer of double-speak. Pitiful all the same.

I don't think you are very experienced person at writing. You just talk about the poverty, what do you want me to do, as a reader who went on Yahoo! and searched something unrelated? And plus, whatever you said doesn't make any sense. Please just get a life and stop being an dumb person. Fuck off asshole!